I'm raising this issue, not to complain, but to see if there is something that I'm missing.  In Knight, my Purdue squad recently missed the NT.  I'm going to compare them to a team that got in, presumably as the last at-large, Kansas (no offense, thorknight, you won a game in the NT, which I probably wouldn't have done.)

To compare the teams qualifications, I will use WIS' own criteria for NT selections as found in the FAQ: Record (Overall, Conference, Non-Conference, Road, last 10 games, Against RPI 1-50, 51-100, 101-200, > 200), RPI (Overall, Conference, Non-Conference) and, though it's not listed but is widely accepted as playing a role, CT performance.

Purdue is superior to Kansas in RPI (by 12 spots, 44 to 56), overall record, non-conference record, road record, last 10 games, against RPI 1-50 and in the CT.  

Kansas is better, by a 9-7 vs 7-9 margin, in conference record.

(I can't say for sure regarding conference/non-conference RPI, but given that Purdue was 12 spots better overall, it stands to reason that Purdue had a better RPI in both subcategories, or a slim deficit in one and a HUGE lead in the other).

So my question is, how did Kansas make the NT?  

I asked CS about this, and was told that conference record plays a "big" part.  I'll say.  By their logic, a 2 game advantage in conference record tops an advantage in EVERY OTHER CATEGORY that is considered.

So, my question is, is there something I'm missing here?  CS told me that they're looking at the logic, but my question is, what is this current "logic" that would lead to a situation like this?  How is the code written?

Can anyone help me out with this?

How far did each team go in their CT?

What about rip before the nt?

Nevermind about that how were they a #15 seed in the tourney as an at large? Also they did have a really high SOS though. I just want to know how an at large team is rated #15.

Kansas went to the quarterfinals, Purdue made the tournament final.  And the RPI before the NT were Purdue at 44, Kansas at 56.

The thing I will say is that, speaking as someone who has actually worked in college sports, basketball people are oddly skittish about putting a team in the tournament with a below-.500 conference record. I really don't know why-- if you beat really tough OOC competition, have a good RPI and a good overall record, those seem like they should be what matter (especially since, if you have a sub-.500 conference record but still have a good RPI and good overall record, it means you must have done insanely well out of conference). But for some reason, those in the biz just hate teams with sub-.500 conference records and often use that as deciding criteria against them. They act like that's the death knell.

So I agree that it is wildly unfair, but it is also more or less realistic.

prezuiwf - Oh, I know exactly what you're talking about.  In real life, Kansas very likely would have made it over me (though with all the pub a CT final run would have gotten, it would have made things interesting), but there is no such rule on WIS, to my knowledge.

My Cincinnati team went 4-12 in conference two years ago and got in the NT as a 13 seed.

I guess I shouldve also pointed out that I won the CT, but my RPI was 26....guess a below .500 conference record is something I should pay more attention to in the future.

because that makes it closer to real life.  in real life teams with sub .500 records in conference almost never make the NT no matter how many good teams they beat early in the season or how good their RPI is.  GT making it this year is really the only example i can think of of a team like that making it in and a lot of sportswriters were complaining that they shouldn't.  conference play is the bread and butter of college bball, if you don't finish atleast .500 you shouldn't be in the NT IMO.

Do you have the details of vs. RPI 1-50, 51-100 etc.?

RPI 1-50 - Purdue 6-10, Kansas 3-10
RPI 51- 100 - Purdue 2-2, Kansas 5-2
RPI 101-200 - Purdue 6-1, Kansas 5-1
RPI 200+ - Purdue 3-0, Kansas 2-0

Posted by schroedess26 on 7/31/2010 7:00:00 PM (view original):
Nevermind about that how were they a #15 seed in the tourney as an at large? Also they did have a really high SOS though. I just want to know how an at large team is rated #15.

there have been 16 seed at larges in recent seasons. These kind of at larges happen every year